So the fact that oil-man, George Bush, wanted to build a secure oil pipeline clean across Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict, huh?

There again, of course the Taliban would have to have their cut, any sensible power broker would realise that; so that fact cannot account for the launch of a war, or the psych-op behind the pretext for it.

It's an opinion piece, OK. But I too am concerned about the slant, and the accuracy, opinion piece or not, has to be checked:

Quote: "If Queen Elizabeth II and Baron Jacob Rothschild, the heads of the crime syndicate,"

The queen is head of state, and the finances of the monarch have been compromised through the control of Rothschild et al., fair enough. Cromwell, not the monarch, began that reliance on that corrupting source. H.M. Customs and Excise and military transport may well have ( and I believe do) a hand in the transport of this heroin trade. But to infer that the Queen (and previously King) are the head of the illegal trade is an opinion that is often jumped to. The monarch is born into the position, and whilst they are busy at work, the do in fact delegate responsibilities, and themselves do not launch wars, or take up prosecution for corruption. That is the job of the people and their government.
So, to infer that the monarch is corrupt, rather than people themselves, and those placed inside state institutions, is like saying the American Constitution is corrupt, and so were the founders, as they foresore corruption and failed to prevent it. I could give examples of how, with very little media knowledge or reporting, the monarch and their close agents, work behind the scenes to offset corruption at critical points, and that includes the recent banking transfer of wealth by the Blair-Bush cartel. It's like a struggle between good and evil within an institution, such as the FBI, or the American MIlitary.

I have no doubt that the inner government - the controlling private financiers, and their world organisations and man-made religions, together with their stooges everywhere, are leaders in the corruption. Not the monarch. Yet there are examples of British Monarch seeking to control trade, for example Virginian tobacco, and going so far as to order the destruction of crops grown locally in England. Perhaps that is bad, when they owe their duty to ensure the well-being of the people. On the other hand, they may have been ill-advised, under the pressure of needing to maintain the military in Colonialism; taxes had to be raised somehow, and a tax on tobacco is perhaps preferable to a direct income tax on all people.
Ah, but, some may say, colonialism, there you have it - a wickedness. That to me, is too simplistic, and demonstrates mind control: European states were in colonial competition: Join in or bow out. Same as free market forces - but better when the law is upheld - and by the law I mean 'do no harm'. The Crown brought with it the rule of law - which is the sovereignty of the people and as such, freedom and equality under the law - whatever the race. Throughout history, empires are made, with partnerships between local princes and kings. They cannot be seen as merely a force of corruption, but the reverse, where popular and successful in upholding the law, and access to it.
It is our modern education, tailor-made for materialism, feminism and the sheeple, that fails to address the subject of history of Kings and empires in a fair light: progress is supposedly world government, materialistic consumption, with specified rights dispensed from a Central government, eclipsing the power to rule by local law, common law, access to a reasonable court of law, and democratic leaders/chiefs with power and responsibility invested in them.

Weak, really weak. C'mon guys, you can do better than this. It must be an opinion piece, since I don't see any facts in it, but then, I don't see any author's name. This statement in footnote 1 is amazing.--
"The loss of the Afghan drug revenue was the single biggest factor in the fall of the Eastern Block."
Were the Soviets running the massive opium/heroin enterprise that funded the militancy and caused thousands of young Russian soldiers to become addicts?
Afghanistan has always been a means to an end, just like the drug industry. Drug profits are just a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of dollars worth of natural resources to be plundered.

It is an opinion piece indeed. That's why it is located in the opinion section of the site. With all due respect, Peter: What other fantastic natural resources are there to plunder in Afghanistan, other than opium? Stones? I can't see anything else that would be worth the trouble of occupying a place like Afghanistan. Illegal drugs are the biggest and most profitable business in the world. Opium is the raw material to many of them, including heroine. The illegal drug trade has always been controlled by the British Crown. 95% of the drugs are distributed by government agencies, who are acting as franchisees, as a means of generating revenue the parliament doesn''t know about.

Andrew,

You are not responding to the poster's objection. Despite the verisimilitude of this excellent article, an outlandish claim like "The loss of the Afghan drug revenue was the single biggest factor in the fall of the Eastern Block." cannot simply be asserted. It must be supported. Arguing that opium is the only lucrative resource in Afghanistan, even if true, proves nothing at all. The Soviets, remember, had political motives, and policies which called for supporting "progressive" neighboring governments like Afghanistans over the backward challengers like the drug lords. I think your claim is opposite to history...the Russians were not interested in drug profits, but on the contrary, in modernizing their southern neighbor, in Marxist-Leninist fashion. If you can contradict this standard historical account, you must also present your sources....so far I have seen nothing but your rather bald-faced claim to support your argument, and that goes for your reply above.

I didn't really want to get side-tracked on the loss of opium revenue factor in the fall of the Bolshevik Empire because it is not the focus of this article. However, since there is a lot of interest on that matter, I will make it a priority to write a properly referenced entry for the Ziopedia.org site as I had planned to do anyhow. For now, I can tell you so much that profits from the production and wholesaling of Afghan opium was how the Banksters in London and New York financed the Soviet Empire. When they allowed the American's to cut off that lifeline, the Bolshevik knew that their numbers were counted and resigned into their fate.